Abstract

In
Thinking Geographically
(Hubbard
et al.
2002), a
student-centred guide to the theoretical landscape
of human geography, we began by noting the
different ways of writing geography’s histories.
One way, we suggested, was to present the disciplinary
landscape as a battlefield populated by
warring factions, each led by totemic figureheads
who fire intellectual potshots at one another in the
attempt to overwhelm other forms of geographical
thinking. While alliances may be drawn, and truces
occasionally brokered, the overwhelming picture is
one of intellectual spats, simmering resentments
and outright hostility between those situated in
different ‘camps’. In short, if we follow this metaphor
through, we reach the conclusion that geography is
a discipline riven by division, with the clash of
personalities and intellectual positions manifest in
constant battles. Even when the war is seemingly
won, and a particular way of thinking becomes
dominant, civil wars break out, and the cycle of
violence begins again.